The Russians had much more troops than NATO today in Afghanistan. Why should we win? Iraq is smaller and there are much more troops and it doesn't work there.
The strategy is false and the Nothern Alliance was never less brutal than the Taleban.
The whole war was started without public discussion and is now going on for 6 years without an end be seeable. Why should people who have never done us any harm start to do that in the future? The Taleban and AlQaida were not the same, but were united by the attacks. Nobody will "follow us home" and if, these 30 M people could come as immigrants replacing aging societies. If there was such a danger from them, why was the war started after 9/11 and not after a long independent public debate?
Why believes Mike Scheurer, former had of operations for hunting O. BinLaden, that even AlQaida will not attack the west as defined above, if we just withdraw completely from the ME.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4889-2004Nov22?language=printer)
Why don't we talk with Pakistani democratic leaders, wh suggest, the NATO strategy is wrong (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/30/pakistani_opposition_leader_imran_khan_on)
Why do we accept, that the US is still making the decisions as indicated by the above comment(http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/02/imperial-catfig.html#more)

Maybe we should stay, but only if there is immediately public discussion, in which not the rubbish about security is told, but really purely the humanitarian aspects are on the table. And if then a majority is for withdrawel the elite has to obey. We are loosing much more than some people in some terror attacks, if we allow the elite to kill in the name of our people, despite the people do not agree. It is not the losses in our people which are the problem, but that they kill in our name.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers